Atraqchi v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Eighth Circuit

Atraqchi v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

959 F.2d 740, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 5651, 1992 WL 63031

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 1, 1992

DocketNo. 92-1006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 959 F.2d 740 (Atraqchi v. Federal Bureau of Investigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atraqchi v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 959 F.2d 740, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 5651, 1992 WL 63031 (8th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Irene and Mike Atraqchi appeal pro se from the order of the District Court¹ for the District of Minnesota denying their amended motion to vacate judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). For reversal, the Atraqchis argue that in September 1990 the district court erroneously dismissed their civil rights lawsuit without affording them a hearing, and that they asserted sufficient reasons in their Rule 60(b)(6) motion to warrant relief. We affirm.

Rule 60(b)(6) permits a court to grant relief “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for ... any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” The “ ‘other reason’ clause ... vests power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614-15, 69 S.Ct. 384, 390, 93 L.Ed. 266 (1949).

After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the amended Rule 60(b)(6) motion for failure to set forth a proper ground for relief. The Atraqchis’ claims did not present an “unusual situation” warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Fuller v. Quire, 916 F.2d 358, 361 (6th Cir.1990). To the extent that the Atraqchis assert claims on appeal that they did not raise in their amended Rule 60(b)(6) motion, we note that “[tjhis Court has maintained consistently that ‘Rule 60(b) was not intended as a substitute for a direct appeal from an erroneous judgment.’ ” Spinar v. South Dakota Bd. of Regents, 796 F.2d 1060, 1062 (8th Cir.1986) (quoting Hartman v. Lauchli, 304 F.2d 431, 432 (8th Cir.1962)).

Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Irene and Mike Atraqchi appeal pro se from the order of the District Court¹ for the District of Minnesota denying their amended motion to vacate judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). For reversal, the Atraqchis argue that in September 1990 the district court erroneously dismissed their civil rights lawsuit without affording them a hearing, and that they asserted sufficient reasons in their Rule 60(b)(6) motion to warrant relief. We affirm.

Rule 60(b)(6) permits a court to grant relief “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for ... any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” The “ ‘other reason’ clause ... vests power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614-15, 69 S.Ct. 384, 390, 93 L.Ed. 266 (1949).

After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the amended Rule 60(b)(6) motion for failure to set forth a proper ground for relief. The Atraqchis’ claims did not present an “unusual situation” warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Fuller v. Quire, 916 F.2d 358, 361 (6th Cir.1990). To the extent that the Atraqchis assert claims on appeal that they did not raise in their amended Rule 60(b)(6) motion, we note that “[tjhis Court has maintained consistently that ‘Rule 60(b) was not intended as a substitute for a direct appeal from an erroneous judgment.’ ” Spinar v. South Dakota Bd. of Regents, 796 F.2d 1060, 1062 (8th Cir.1986) (quoting Hartman v. Lauchli, 304 F.2d 431, 432 (8th Cir.1962)).

Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.

989 F.2d 505 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

959 F.2d 740, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 5651, 1992 WL 63031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atraqchi-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation-ca8-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack